art as dialogue ... inevitability and irrelevence
I am interested in the notion of art as a dialogue, though i leave open right now the question of "between whom(s)?".
If it is a dialogue, or as A. Danto would say, a narrative, i am immediately led to think about teleology ... is there a necessary outcome (at least viewed from hindsight)?
Danto is speaking in the Hegelian language, and so the question arises because Marx, as Hegelian, forces it to so do. In the specific Marxian dialogue the bourgeos class is historically irrelevent and the proletariat class will inevitably rise to power. I don't know too many people who believe that is the case, but what i am interested here is the structure of the Marxist master-slave dialogue, the notion of inevitability and of historic irrelevence.
From the time the artist began asking the question "what is art?" and/or "what are the limits to art?" was the answer already inevitably "anything and everything can fall within that arena" ?
Logically, of course, there are uncountably many answers to that question, so i guess i'm being intentionaly materialistic here ... given the time and culture in which the question formed (a later topic), was the answer "anything" inevitable.
Did the (and do the) background assumptions (something like the Foucault grille) drive the the question to this conclusion? If we lift those assumptions can we re-ask the question and arrive at a different answer, or is "anything" the final answer if we pull away all the assumptions anyway. (Is the contemporary artist, able to make any art of any thing for any one) in any way living in a Foucault-lian world of freedom ... at least in regards to that one capacity? If so, does that make them better off? ... or worse? ... or is the question beside the point?
Two questions:
Is art since the enlightenment in any way a dialogue?
If yes, does it have any inherent inevitabilities and irrelevencies?
I think, at least, starting from the time of the invasion of art by technology (e.g. the photograph) that the dialogues "what is art?" and, within a specific medium, "what can this medium do artistically" is a very real narrative.
At this point i am skeptical about the inevitability of the "anything" answer, but i consider it to be an open question.
If it is a dialogue, or as A. Danto would say, a narrative, i am immediately led to think about teleology ... is there a necessary outcome (at least viewed from hindsight)?
Danto is speaking in the Hegelian language, and so the question arises because Marx, as Hegelian, forces it to so do. In the specific Marxian dialogue the bourgeos class is historically irrelevent and the proletariat class will inevitably rise to power. I don't know too many people who believe that is the case, but what i am interested here is the structure of the Marxist master-slave dialogue, the notion of inevitability and of historic irrelevence.
From the time the artist began asking the question "what is art?" and/or "what are the limits to art?" was the answer already inevitably "anything and everything can fall within that arena" ?
Logically, of course, there are uncountably many answers to that question, so i guess i'm being intentionaly materialistic here ... given the time and culture in which the question formed (a later topic), was the answer "anything" inevitable.
Did the (and do the) background assumptions (something like the Foucault grille) drive the the question to this conclusion? If we lift those assumptions can we re-ask the question and arrive at a different answer, or is "anything" the final answer if we pull away all the assumptions anyway. (Is the contemporary artist, able to make any art of any thing for any one) in any way living in a Foucault-lian world of freedom ... at least in regards to that one capacity? If so, does that make them better off? ... or worse? ... or is the question beside the point?
Two questions:
Is art since the enlightenment in any way a dialogue?
If yes, does it have any inherent inevitabilities and irrelevencies?
I think, at least, starting from the time of the invasion of art by technology (e.g. the photograph) that the dialogues "what is art?" and, within a specific medium, "what can this medium do artistically" is a very real narrative.
At this point i am skeptical about the inevitability of the "anything" answer, but i consider it to be an open question.
posted by Thomas F. Schminke at 7:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home